The controversy. Language difficulty is a pretty controversial issue for some reason. The controversy is not just regarding which language is more difficult, but also whether it’s even appropriate to discuss language difficulty. People are always going to argue over which language is more difficult, so I want to elaborate on the other issue – why do some think it’s inappropriate to discuss difficulty? There are the three reasons that people most commonly give on the forums. Let me use the following statement to explain them: “Given a level playing field, an adult learner, with English as a mother tongue, will find Mandarin about 4 times as hard as Spanish. This means it will take the learner roughly 4 times as long to learn Mandarin to a high level as it will take to learn Spanish to that same level.” 1) There is no such thing as a level playing field. Factors such as motivation, exposure, ancestry, etc, will never allow the playing field to be level, so it is meaningless to talk about language difficulty. 2) Language difficulty has nothing to do with the time it takes to learn, so the discussion is worthless. 3) Talk about difficulty is very discouraging, therefore nothing good can ever come of it, and it should be avoided at all costs. But I think discussing language difficulty is both interesting and useful. I disagree with the above statements to some extent. I don’t think it matters that there is no such thing as a level playing field in real life, language difficulty is still a useful metric. When you hear someone say one language is harder than another, they are usually talking about how long it takes to learn. People who say time has nothing to do with difficulty often have trouble expressing what they mean by "difficult". I agree that spending one hour trying to correct fossilized bad pronunciation is more intense than watching a movie for one hour, but how do you quantify this difference in difficulty? In this forum, I intend to use time to learn when discussing language difficulty, and I hope others will too. Finally, there are those who will find discouragement in many things. There is a trend these days not do or say anything that could be interpreted as negative or discouraging. For example, I was on one of my favorite forums about a year ago, and a guy posted a long explanation of his language learning system, and asked for criticism. He got about 10 posts of people praising him, and giving him zero useful feedback. So I made a very critical post. Immediately, I was chastised by several members for being too harsh, even though the post was constructive. The OP finally came back and thanked me for the post, and said he wished he had gotten that kind of feedback from others. This kind of thing is actually one of the reasons why I started this forum. I was tired of being scolded, and some times even censored, for discouraging others. My philosophy for this forum is to encourage the sharing of knowledge and experience. Let the receivers of the information decide whether they should attach emotions like discouragement or encouragement to what they read. This is something I will never be able to control, so the best I can do is share the knowledge and stand back. The difficulty chart. There is an amazingly helpful article called Lessons learned from fifty years of theory and practice in government language teaching written by members of FSI. I recommend that you read the whole article, but the chart I refer to is listed as “Table 2”. You will notice that there are different categories of languages, and the “class hours to achieve goal” is listed. For example, Spanish is in Category I, with 575-600 hours. Chinese is in Category III, with 2200 hours. Now I will point out that these are class hours, not the hours a self studier will require to reach C1/C2 or whatever your goal is. So if these aren’t the actual numbers for you to reach your goal, how are they useful? For me, just knowing relative difficulty of languages can be helpful. For example, say I have studied Spanish, and I want to know how long it will take to learn Mandarin. If it took me 1.5 years to learn Spanish to C1 from scratch, and I plan to put in the same level of effort for Mandarin, than it will take me roughly 1.5 X 4 = 6.0 years to learn Mandarin to C1. Another example, say I’m trying to decide between studying German and Greek. Knowing it takes roughly half as long to learn German as it does to learn Greek can help me make my decision. Anyway, there you have it. Perhaps not the most traditional discussion of language difficulty you’ll find, but I hope you find it somewhat useful.
I agree with practically everything you wrote, and I think it is an extremely useful way of looking at it. Time consumption is a better measure than 'difficulty'. Washing a floor that is 10000 square meters is not more difficult than washing one that is 1 square meter, but it is a hell of a lot more time consuming. But just for the record, if I think you are being mean to someone, and you think you are giving constructive criticism, you being an admin and forum owner will not stop me from scolding you if I think you deserve it. But you can of course happily chose to ignore it, like you always have.
I agree with your view that difficulty is not simply synonymous with time necessary to learn. Rather the time differences are reflective of various underlying difficulties/challenges, such as different scripts/alphabets, various degrees of agglutination, similarity to other known languages including one's L1, the varied ways of expressing concepts among different languages, etc. Looking at Mandarin Chinese, one can take the example of 中国话. That's the first level of meaning to decode, i.e. the characters. The second is the sound of those characters, i.e. zhōngguóhuà. Then the next level of meaning is its translation, the English for which is "Chinese language." But it gets more difficult in usage. Instead of saying as in English, "Chinese speaker", one would probably form it in Madarin as something like 中国话的人, i.e. zhōngguóhuàderén, where the possessive particle 的 is added to a term to form an adjective. This is a typical method of usage in Mandarin, at least as I remember from many years ago. Such differing patterns of usage, like the concept of aspect in Russian verbs, just take a while to get used to. The same with the simpler concept of declension. Instead of discouraging, I prefer to think of difficulty as sobering. Realizing that the 3000 word is enough for fluency grifters are way off the mark, and that one actually needs a vocabulary of 15-20K words in most languages to read and listen comfortably shoudn't discourage a learner once the learner realizes the truth of that necessity and commits to learning in spite of it. Rather it should spur the learner to discover methods to acquire lots of vocabulary in a reasonable timeframe, so that he/she can get to using that new language. One can either mimic guitar playing via the air guitar, or one can actually get down to learning to play the guitar and get in the necessary practice required. Thinking that one can master any language in 3 months is similar to hoping to win the lotto. There is an opportunity cost with everything, and the real question is whether the difficulty of a given language vis-a-vis others is worth the cost/effort. If one is not ready to run a marathon, then best not to enter one. Instead enter a 10K run and complete that. Perhaps one may then go on to run that marathon. But if one wants indeed to start with a marathon, then one has to train for it.
My point being, you are both disagreeing with me. If I say one language is harder than another, I mean it takes longer to learn than the other. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Well said.
If I'm to believe language learning forums, could it also be,,, "Instead of discouraging, I prefer to think of difficulty as user friendliness." How else to explain those CJK fanatics ??
"No such thing as a level playing-field" is a poor excuse. People are all physically very different, but physical training techniques, medicines etc all work similarly well for most people. Person A might have some natural proclivity to language learning that person B doesn't, but if they're both monoglot Anglophones, they're both going to find Spanish easier and quicker to learn than Basque. As for discouragement -- there's nothing more discouraging than getting lots of encouragement... then failing. This has always been my beef with he-who-shall-not-be-named. He tells everyone how easy it is to learn a language, but he's setting them up for a fall because he gives no real practical advice on how to do it. The final conclusion is "it's easy, but I've failed, so I'm rubbish." Better to be realistic, but encouraging at the same time. Telling people "beware of the scary case system -- it'll ***k your head up" is not good. Telling them that there are things that take a lot of time to get your head round is fine. Perhaps that's what they mean when they try to divorce the notions of "difficulty" and "time".
Yes, don't you remember ? I recall a subset of people with those three as goals (or imaginary goals, haha) because of the difficulty.
No it wasn't clear actually . To say that difficulty is primarily a function of time, is also to say that with time anyone can actually learn any language. But is that really the case, even when removing the general cases of learning or physical disabilities (like tone deafness)? That is, if the average person does not possess such disabilities, is that enough? Or at least for some languages, is a positive aptitude required, that is if one wishes to learn them in a reasonable period of time rather than years in an immersive environment? People like to think that with enough determination, effort and grit, one can overcome any difficulty. But maybe sometimes the tortoise just breaks down and gives up whilst trying to overtake the hare, not from lack of determination, but for lack of ability. Not every average person without physical handicaps has the physical abilities, even if trained from birth, to be an olympic athlete, or even a fairly good athlete. And I suspect the same is true for intellectual abilities. Einstein wouldn't have been Einstein if he had been of average innate ability.
We're not looking for Einsteins or Peles, we're looking for the average Joe's that have been learning languages for generations. I am not an Olympic cyclist. I am not even a fairly good cyclist. I can stay upright, and I can go forward. I go forward faster than most commuters, but slower than most "proper" amateurs. But that was good enough to get me from the Mediterranean to the English Channel and anyone without specific health problems could do the same. The same is true of intellectual endeavours -- the only difference is in the training techniques. Sports training has improved immeasurably in the last few decades, thanks to improved camera technology. Take swimming -- the old training was based around an "S-stroke" with the arms, until coaches started experimenting with wind-tunnel-like swimming pools to monitor progress, and the introduction of the underwater chase cam. Suddenly it became clear that the successful swimmers weren't doing what they thought they were doing. Once they knew what champion swimmers really did, they started teaching that instead, and now you've got super-trained monsters who can cross an Olympic-sized swimming pool in a handful of strokes. The problem for the language learner is that there is no chase cam for looking inside a successful learner's head -- all we can do is discuss and compare. We need to get beyond the superficial details of "I use SRS" and "I LR" and start drilling down to what we do with all the input we receive, and find the similarities in what we do with the material once we have it.
I would suspect that average Joe's are not in fact what we are looking for. They either weren't so average, i.e. were upperclass and learned languages by force at school, or were from more modest backgrounds and either were a) immersed in another language or b) were exceptional intellectually who managed to learn languages (or math & physics) despite economic disadvantages. What we are looking for is self-learners like ourselves, who while not necessarily intellectually endowed as Einstein was, still nevertheless rate to be above average in intelligence. I admit that last assertion is largely unprovable and that we here are a self-selected lot. Without aptitude, I speculate further than someone of average intelligence is likely to learn very slowly, and mostly one specific foreign language. Obviously I could be wrong, and such elitist sounding propositions often are. Stop being so modest. You're head and shoulders above the average simply because you have achieved success in multiple languages without being immersed in them for years on end. I agree with that for the most part except the last bit. SRS/LR/etc are anything but superficial. The are time-saving proven techniques, even if not usable by everyone (I am not much for LR). I suspect though that the very last part of that sentence, about what we do with the material we have learned by whatever means, optimal or not, is what your main point there is. It is a truism that we don't use SRS or LR or whatever method as means unto themselves. Ideally they should support other language activities. For myself, I view SRS as an adjunct to formal courses and to extensive reading and listening. The problem is, even with just one individual learner, isolating causes and effects. Only systematic trials can do that. It was often commented on at HTLAL re various methods, that no one actually uses just one method for any even smallish span of time. So if I watch Spanish telenovelas from day 1 when I start a Spanish course, then it is impossible to accurately assess that course, no matter that at the beginning the soaps were mostly gibberish to me. I remember commenting in a Goldlist thread on HTLAL that hardly anyone persevered and reported success long term, but that a common factor among those trying it for a while was trying constantly to up the number of lists used each day. There were no trials of anything in between (an exception is ElComandreja's test with his Konie Greek pupils [Bob on this forum]). So each individual, even with the bevy of materials and methods discussed here and elsewhere and the experiences of others with same, is mostly left to his/her own devices to both find an assortment that works, and also keep the motivation to actually persevere, which most self-learners don't, even if they believe us about actually difficulty versus the master a language in a very short time with a low bar definition of fluency and proficiency con-men. Even though I myself have not complete an Assimil course, though shortly I plan to revisit Spanish Without Toil and complete it, I would speculate that anyone who completes an Assimil style course for a Romance language, following exactly the instructions for same, and still does not learn that language to the realistic level it can take one to (a little above A2), simply does not have the aptitude required for learning languages. While FSI drill type courses may be more optimal for some learners, I just can't imagine success with that when not able to have reasonable success with the less demanding Assimil courses (which by design are for "average" learners to learn easily). If I were 18 again, no amount of advances in sports training would make me have the talent to be a professional athlete. And the same with theoretical physics, even though I was good at math and studied it to a higher level than most university students.
I can certainly imagine success without Assimil. I've never used Assimil for a romance language, but have tried using it for Turkish. It bored me to tears. The FSI courses I and II, on the other hand, were much more motivating to me, precisely because of the drills, although I later had to update some vocabulary learned in the course. Of course, I'm also talking about a language that is radically different than any Indo-European language I know or have studied. Assimil may have kept my interest for a romance language... I don't know. In any case, I think it's unfair to say that if you can't follow an Assimil course through, you don't have the aptitude required to learn another language. I don't think it matters whether the learner is average or exceptional. What matters is holding their interest and keeping them motivated. R. ==
Does that guarantee success, i.e. that they will both persevere and actually be able to reach the goal, in a non-immersive environment that lacks coercion (i.e. not compulsory education)? Can the fact that most self-learners, like people who buy gym memberships to get fit, don't actually persevere, be explained mainly by boring and thus demotivating learning materials?
I believe so, yes. I'm not a huge fan of the gym, and it's not because of the workouts or the equipment... it's more about the other people that go there - lots of self-important dicks. I get just as fit, if not more so, by swimming, hiking, skiing, etc, and I can either do it alone or do it with people I enjoy being with. R. ==
You already possess the physical ability to do those activities, though not as extensively at first naturally, i.e. you start with a hike of a couple miles and then work up to longer ones. At some point, in order to progress, you have to stretch yourself to the point of difficulty, tiredness or even pain. Kind of like an i+1 for the body. Is it likely that those learners who complain about boring materials, would with more interesting (to them) materials also endure a certain amount of tedium? Would they be able to progress without some small degree of tedium? As an example, if they dove straight into native materials that they were interested in, would they persevere in studying same intensively at first despite the initial difficulty? Or especially during the long B2ish phase of only small gains for a lot of effort? If you were a teacher, and wanted to keep a student interested and motivated, how would you proceed? Given the interests that student had, what materials and methods would you advise him/her using? If answers to such questions when targeted to just one individual are vague, then I don't see how discussing this serves any purpose. "boring" and "tedious" + intensity gets the job done in a reasonable time frame for lots of learners, though with a high attrition rate. My speculation is that such an attrition rate is due to lack of "stick-to-it-iveness" and lack of ability. If that speculation is wrong, then it should be possible to tailor an approach to each individual of even mediocre abilities, that will will also get the job done in a reasonable time frame, and with a far lower attrition rate. Would you agree with that proposition? (Note that in a school setting this would seem to mean essentially the teacher being a resource provider and counselor while each student or self-selecting group of same, followed their own course of studies. I seem to remember one study confirming this, as in tell the students what they need to learn, then let 2 or 3 of them use a computer and internet and find the materials to learn it for themselves. The question is whether they would persevere with such studying to a meaningful degree of proficiency.)
Ah, thanks for the memories. Korean is actually next on my hit list, but I vowed to reach C1 in Russian before I start any more. I want to settle the "which language is harder" question once and for all. Korean learners are very insistent that there is no harder (major) language for a native english speaker. Exactly! Super good post, btw. Absolutely. I believe the two essentials are time and motivation. There are many other things that would help a lot - a good method, appropriate/fun/interesting material, immersion, an l2 paramour, etc, etc, etc. I suspect higher intelligence is an advantage, but I don't think it's a necessity. Excellent point. And how often have you heard someone who used a technique, while learning a language, recommend others not use that technique because they think it didn't help them? This is a sticky wicket, because how does he know it didn't work? I got that one from an old Cainntear post. Sorry if that went off topic. I have to respectfully disagree. Assimil doesn't work well for me. If I just used Assimil, I probably wouldn't reach B1 (that's the level you mean, right?), but I feel I have the aptitude required for learning languages.
Exactly, but I don't just mean that we need to discuss SRS and L/R in the context of the wider learning programme, but at the thinking strategies we use to help us internalise the material we're working with. For example, I'm SRSing some German vocab at the moment, and for a few words that I'm having trouble remembering, I'm using pseudo-mnemonic techniques. I don't like mnemonics - they are based on unnatural associations and clearly must interfere with the semantic network you're trying to build in your brain. The fact that I have to do this points to a weakness in SRS - it doesn't deal with genuinely difficult stuff. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Supermemo was targeted at learning facts, not foreign vocab, and facts are presented as sentences or data that are readily comprehensible to the reader. The same is not true of words in a language you don't really speak yet. You need more structured, supported learning; at the very least, you need tricky words to be identified and repeated intelligently, rather than arbitrarily. And having them in varying contexts would be good too, as it's less mind-numbing. Those of us who persist with SRS have to inure ourselves to a certain level of boredom, but boredom isn't something we should have to put up with. I know most of you disagree with me on this, because you're so accustomed to being bored while learning, but no-one has ever argued against my logic as far as I can remember. "Fun" is a subjective term, but at its core it refers to one simple thing: mental stimulation. If you find roller-coasters fun, it's because all the movement stimulates your brain. If you enjoy horror films, it's because the negative images stimulate your brain. Now, what is learning? It's mental stimulation. It's the purest form of mental stimulation. What is boredom? It's a lack of mental stimulation. Therefore it should be clear that boredom is the opposite of learning -- learning can never be boring. Anything that is boring is not learning. If you were 18 again, you would not be able to train to the level of today's athletes, but I'd put good money on you getting to a level that would compete with athletes in the first modern Olympics, in 1896, who didn't have the benefit of today's training techniques. People who have natural ability will do well. People who receive good training will do well. Yes, people who have natural ability and receive good training will always be the best, but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be content with being as good as we can be.
I personally disagree with this idea of personalisation of study. Some personalisation is good, yes, but at the moment it just seems like a good excuse for the teacher. "It's not my fault the students aren't learning -- I can only teach one course at a time, and they all need different courses." The best teacher I had at high school didn't believe that -- he believed in good teaching. His philosophy was that if five kids didn't understand his lesson, he needed to improve it. If four kids didn't understand his lesson, he needed to improve it. Three, two, one... any misunderstanding in his class was an indication of a weakness in his teaching. The fact that this weakness didn't affect the top of the class was irrelevant -- he saw us as being more tolerant of poor teaching than the kids at the bottom of the class. But too many teachers point to the top of the class and say "see? They're learning, so my teaching must be good." Wrong.